Wrong thread...
On 09/10/2014 03:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hmm. Sorry, I misunderstood the specification.
>
>> You approach that coloring tokens seems right, but you have
>> broken the parse logic by adding your code.
>>
>> Other than the mistakes others pointed, I found that
>>
>> - non-SQL-ident like tokens are ignored by their token style,
>> quoted or not, so the following line works.
>>
>> | "local" All aLL trust
>>
>> I suppose this is not what you intended. This is because you have
>> igonred the attribute of a token when comparing it as
>> non-SQL-ident tokens.
>>
>>
>> - '+' at the head of the sequence '+"' is treated as the first
>> character of the *quoted* string. e.g. +"hoge" is tokenized as
>> "+hoge":special_quoted.
>
> I found this is what intended. This should be documented as
> comments.
>
> |2) users and user-groups only requires special handling and behavior as follows
> | Normal user :
> | A. unquoted ( USER ) will be treated as user ( downcase ).
> | B. quoted ( "USeR" ) will be treated as USeR (case-sensitive).
> | C. quoted ( "+USER" ) will be treated as normal user +USER (i.e. will not be considered as user-group) and
case-sensitiveas string is quoted.
>
> This seems confising with the B below. This seems should be
> rearranged.
>
> | User Group :
> | A. unquoted ( +USERGROUP ) will be treated as +usergruop ( downcase ).
> | B. plus quoted ( +"UserGROUP" ) will be treated as +UserGROUP (case-sensitive).
>
>
>
>> This is why you simply continued processing for '+"' without
>> discarding and skipping the '+', and not setting in_quote so the
>> following parser code works as it is not intended. You should
>> understand what the original code does and insert or modify
>> logics not braeking the assumptions.
>
> regards,
>
--
- Heikki